Tender software at an affordable price

No digital shutdown. The greater part of the benefit of professional tendering software is when the bidder receives the result immediately as a file and can also fill in their offer into the file - then it saves the client (of a school center or similar) work. However, for a single-family house, usually only bidders participate in the tender who cannot even open such tender files, so paper is the compatible "format". Software affordable for private individuals achieves no more than tax return shareware. And: the experience must be present in the operator; the software does not generate that. If the user already says themselves they are ambitious but still a layman/ beginner, the advice must logically be: "do not expect that stuff to perform magic." And also: "layman software usually has no industry-standard output formats" and is thus practically just a nice gimmick.

You will definitely be taken much more seriously in the trade...

You mean, if the tiler reads that the tender texts on every page have the footer "produced with Maggi-Fix for self-contracting homeowners," then he stands at attention?

That happens to me when I recommend "Sweet Home 3D" for creating the floor plan.

Regardless of which layman software you use for planning: 1. lay planners regularly have significantly greater deficits in spatial imagination and sense of proportion than in pure drawing technique; 2. the software has no warning tone if you plan passages or stairs that are too narrow with too little headroom; 3. layman software usually cannot produce output formats that a professional can import into their architectural CAD; 4. the software is not worth it if you only plan a single house (not even if you run through twenty variants): even layman software requires familiarization, and that only pays off after several projects - until then you were faster on paper; 5. hand-scribbling trains the sense for suitable dimensions faster than mouse dragging.

That 6. personally I do not consider much of this stuff beyond distance is subjective and thus does not count as an "argument" anyway.

In my opinion, the way to a successful tender does not lead through software for neat plotting of documents but much more through very classic stages:

A) A good tender stands and falls with the selection of the participating insiders - simply faxing to the assembled team from the directory brings little;

B) a significant motivation boost for the tender participant is to receive the request in a personal conversation instead of choosing some impersonal mail route, whether analog or digital;

C) participating in tenders costs time = money. One is more willing to invest that if one sees a fair chance of winning the contract. And that is not given if one has to fear that the client sent it to twenty companies the same way.

It works very brazenly with us - we get an offer made [...], cross out all prices, and then forward that as a request

That at least makes the request honestly recognizable as a price-comparison inquiry - but then mainly those bidders who want to win contracts by price will participate.

[...] however, those who want to win contracts primarily based on price will then also participate.

These are then the contracts that only turn black with the additional charges. There is nothing better for a seasoned entrepreneur than receiving incomplete tenders, bidding accordingly cheaply, and knowing exactly that he will get the money in the end anyway.

With us, it works quite bluntly - we have an offer made (preferably also with a personal meeting and discussion of how we want what), delete all prices, and then forward it as an inquiry with the respective information (construction folder, etc.)

Legitimate, but for that reason, detailed offers from good companies now directly cost money. And rightly so.

Legitimate, but that's why detailed quotes from good companies now directly cost money. And rightly so.

20 trades - 2-4 inquiries each - never paid anything.

20 trades - 2-4 inquiries each - never paid anything.

"Got lucky."

Legitimate,

Well, but at least with a fluid boundary to "antisocial." To consider it "legitimate" to have the expectation that someone must always have the ambition to make the minimal profit on everything is indeed a coarsening of morals. And it becomes antisocial when the client at the same time wants to apply the Saint Florian principle, that his employer, however, should by all means make enough profit to pay him a princely salary. By this point at the latest, everyone should realize that profit is something necessary. There is a causal connection between low margins and a high risk of insolvency. No client really benefits if their contractor (= guarantor!) disappears prematurely because they can no longer sustain their company. The client mentality "the architect awards to the cheapest - if I cleverly intervene in the tender result wherever the cheapest is not also the lowest, (and replace the person concerned), I will get my house for less money" is short-sighted. The price for this gamble is a "mongrel mix" of craftsmen on the construction site - where the architect would have assembled his usual, well-interacting known-quality crew - and as a result a higher number of problem areas. I will try to illustrate with a football analogy what the client actually does here with his unsurpassed cunning: he sorts out the defenders from his team and only puts forwards on the field. A worse goal difference is no coincidence, but "home-made." And the accompanying expert needs more yellow cards. Hopefully, the OP is concerned here with a different approach, but the right people among the readers are welcome to feel addressed.

Well, but at least with a blurry boundary to "antisocial". To consider it "legitimate" to have the expectation that someone must always have the ambition to make the smallest profit from everything is already a coarsening of morals.

I wanted to be nice once By the way, I agree with your statements 100%. As you say, he was lucky or just came across the companies that needed it.

or just went to the companies that needed it.

Unfortunately, the proportion of exactly those in the overall team is systematically increased when you tender "price-conscious." The leaders of the losers list in tenders are, in second place, those clients who see "less money for the value" as the main goal of a tender; and in first place, those clients who even see this as the only goal.

To me, it seems more desirable to reduce the proportion of those in need in the team.